Thursday, November 15, 2012

Curbed Chicago: "Two Buildings Proposed For Old Maryville Site"

JDL President James Letchinger spoke at length about the proposal, which calls for a total of 776 rental units with high-end finishes. The 625-unit south building, the taller of the pair, will rise to a height of 315 feet and contain 479 parking spaces. The north tower will be around nine stories and house 151 units and 78 parking spots. [...] Some other tidbits worth passing along:
Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture, which also designed 3740 N. Halsted,
has been commissioned to design the project. And while no renderings
were released, the developer has promised truly distinct architecture
for the site. To mitigate traffic impacts, an internal driveway spanning
the length of the site has been incorporated into the plans.
Twenty-percent of the units will be set aside for affordable housing.
Studios will be priced around $1300/month, and one-bedrooms are in the
range of $1600/month. The developer will be seeking TIF funds to finance
the project. Naturally. As for the timeline, it could take 18-19 months
once construction begins.

35 comments:

Curbed and forum.skyscraperpage.com have some of the harshest critics out there for almost any development, urban planning or new structure... These guys make the New York Times look like a church newsletter.

300 Feet is light given the prime location. The building creates a trough in our skyline from Park Place Towers to Edgewater. I expected a taller tower (450+ feet) at a location near Lakeshore Drive. It is sad when developers are afraid to propose a respectable high rise in a city that known for the first skyscraper because of a small vocal minority that lives in nearby 4 story flats. NYC is seeing much taller building proposals in outer boros like Bronx and Queens. I am an owner in Park Place (8+ years) and I hoped for a new high rise in the northside. All of the developmet is focused around the West Loop and River North. For some one who wants to stay on the northside, I have no options for a new building. Uptown deserves a trophy property in addition to the new Wilson Station.

I wish they'd ditch the affordable housing. Unless "affordable housing" is the police, teacher, firefighter housing thing that they are planning to incorporate in Somerset. Otherwise, I really think we've got our fill of low-income housing in this neighborhood.

If JDL could manage to finance the construction without TIF money, there would be no requirement for a 20% affordable housing set-aside. I think that set-aside requirement was one of the "gifts" that Shiller was responsible for...of course, a new ordinance could replace that one with something that defines "affordable" more to the neighborhood's liking, and that absolves developers from placing "affordable" housing in new developments within wards with already high percentages of public and subsidized housing. That's something that could be easily fixed by our elected officials....

I do not think more parking is required for this development. The place is within a high transit area. UK Village just approved a transit oriented (TOD) mid-rise with barely any parking. There are multiple bus lines and the new Sunnyside entrance.

The only thing "better" about this over the Sedgewick proposal is the developer's track record. Which may or may not matter. The 20% number is laughable...they should probably pay out to knock that down because they're dreaming if they think people will pay 1,600 to live in a 1bdrm in a glorified public housing tower.

Density is really the only thing this has going for it and smart money says NIMBYs will knock the height down substantially.

I would be ashamed if the surrounding minority forces even more height restrictions on the developer. The City code allows buildings in that area to reach approximately 500 feet. One of the most attractive aspects about Chicago is seeing a steady stream of high rises along the lake. I work on a top floor in Aon Center and love our northside view. It is especially nice when you are flying in from the East Coast. I would love to see a second proposal with the two proposed buildings combined. A tall (~40 story) tower, such as the one proposed for Clark and Division (see below). Instead of height restrictions, the conversation should be around TIF Funding, an acceptable amount of subsidized housing (is this required for this site?), and traffic flow.

Because developments in those 'hoods make more financial sense. They can charge realistically higher rents and use the money to pay into the affordable housing fund in place of meeting the affordable housing requirement. Margins are much thinner here for obvious reasons...this is why we have the TIF and this is why Sedgewick wanted so much to help differ another glut of subsidized housing.

The 20% subsidized housing would equal a 15 story building being erected...for TIF subsidized housing. I think as a coummunity, we are doing more than our fair share already. A 15 story new building neighbors, paid for by a TIF, of new subsidized housing in Uptown.

We need more public housing like we need pigeons, hair braiding salons, and the homeless urinating in public. If this proposal continues using public money to create more public housing, I’m going to gladly put up a For Sale sign and kiss Uptown goodbye for good. So much for a 46th Ward Master Plan – the contents of which I do support.

I oppose to having more rental units in Uptown and that 20% will be for affordable housing. I paid for my condo and work hard for a living. I want to have the same type of neighbors. People who are here to stay and care about their community.

People should hold off soiling their panties over the affordable housing set asides until they really know what is involved here. Someone mentioned it would be okay if it was meant for teachers, cops, etc., which I think would more likely be the case than say affordable housing for people on disability who occupy much of Uptowns SRO's. This site talks about studios for $1300/month or 1 bedrooms for $1600 as the going rate, and that would hardly be very affordable for someone making less than $50,000 a year. This project is clearly aimed at those who earn well above the median income level, which for Chicago according to the 2010 census was a little over $38,000/yr. Even if this project made units available at HUD's fair market rental rates, they would be at $717 for a studio and $815 for a one bedroom, and they would still be out of the range of the average person on disability who tends to populate our SROs and who represent a scourge to many of the posters here. I tend to think the project will make units affordable for those with incomes in the $25,000 to $45,000 range, which I realize would still be very upsetting to some, but it wouldn't be like people would be moving from the Chateau or Wilson Men's Club into this propsed building. But again, this is only speculation on my part. My point was to hold off on the outrage and victimhood about affordable housing until we really know what that means.

Will an upscale grocer realistically put in a store below a tower in which at least 1 of 5 occupants cannot regularly afford their product?

If TIF funding is necessary, the percent of affordable housing has to be capped well below 20 in the long-term interests of the project and the neighborhood. This follows the Alderman's Master Plan for housing. Pay the difference into the citywide fund.

Also, we already have a glut of studio and 1-BR rentals in the area. The neighborhood needs 2+ BR units. Another part of the Master Plan.

Is JDL also putting 20% affordable housing in their development on Halsted? If not, they surely don't need to put 20% here. We already have way too much in the part of the ward and if Cappleman allows that - FAIL.

I agree that this development should have a nice percentage allocation of 2 bedroom places. JDL's development on Halsted is focused on Studios and 1 Bedrooms, which makes it unattractive for me personally. I hope the proposal has a good mix.

As the commenter who would approve of reduced rents for cops, firefighters, and teachers, I think it bears noting that the $25k-45k range is still frighteningly low. The starting salary for CPS teachers is $50k, for a firefighter it's $45k, and for a cop it's $43k. I know that two of the three are technically in the range you provided, but earning $25k is worlds apart from earning $45k. One is in poverty, and the other is not.

OK, so I did a little research on what is required if JDL uses TIF funds. JDL must include 20% affordable housing in the development or contribute $100k to the affordable housing development fund per unit below 20%. To remove all affordable housing, JDL will have to pay $1.56M to the fund.

According to this document, affordable housing for rental units is defined as:

"affordable to and occupied by households with household income below 60% of the area median household income"

The median household income for Uptown is $40k. So "affordable," according to TIF requirements, means that 20% of the units are reserved for households earning less than $24k. That in turn means rents will be capping at around $700 based on the 35%-of-salary rent guidelines (see the link above).

The development, as planned right now, will add way too much poverty to the neighborhood. Hopefully, the developer can be persuaded to pay into the fund instead of reserving units. In other circumstances, I wouldn't oppose the development of affordable housing, but given that we are well over capacity with our 40% low-income housing, I think this is just too much.

Well nugatory all I would say to your post is that these units are obviously intended for singles or couples, not families, and the poverty level for a single person is around $11,000 a year, so even a $700 a month apt. would be too much for someone who is truly classified as living in poverty. So based on that, I don't see anyone living in poverty moving to Uptown to live in this proposed building. There are plenty of non-gov't jobs where responsible, hard working, good neighbor type people start at less than $30,000 and I don't have a problem with any of them coming to live in Uptown. I am thinking of many friends who work in the theatre or music biz and waitress or bartend part time and earn less than $40,000 and who could benefit from such apt. options.

Justin, from my understanding, the housing requirements only apply to residential development.

Sean, as a staunch defender of Hotel Chateau, Wilson Men's Club, and all of the other problem buildings in the ward, your opinion doesn't really carry much weight with me. You'd be happy to have the units reserved for people who aren't even working at all, I'm sure. And to your point about the poverty line, that's the federal poverty line. While somebody making $20k in rural Iowa might be considered well above the poverty line, that kind of pay is only just above the welfare eligibility in Illinois. In any event, there are plenty of housing options for the people you describe in this city without building additional such units here in Uptown. Quite frankly, we need this area to be more mixed income than it is and adding to the low-income housing stock will not accomplish that.

I hope Sedgwick didn't scare off Marianos. They and Target are definitely driving down prices at other established grocery stores who have been price gouging Chicagoans for years. An area in JDL's proposed outdoor community space on the second floor, facing the park/lake could be a simple "alfresco dining" alternative similar to Marianos at Lakeshore East downtown.

Any TIF project with housing requires a 20% set aside for affordable housing or the developer pays into a fund. People forget there's a zoning committee that provides input into all of this.

I plan on finding out what this 20% really entails in rental prices and then afterwards, give my opinion about it to someone on the zoning committee. I get the impression that the developer is open to suggestions about this project.

Brian Kilpatrick said...I oppose to having more rental units in Uptown and that 20% will be for affordable housing. I paid for my condo and work hard for a living. I want to have the same type of neighbors. People who are here to stay and care about their community.

The ownership rate may drop below 64 percent by the end of 2015 and stay there for years, Scott Simon, the mortgage bond head of Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, said in an e-mail today.“It will be lower by 2017,” he said. “It will be lower in 2020.”About 6 million borrowers will lose their properties in the next five years because of inability to pay, creating 4 million new rental households, Simon said in an April 24 interview on Bloomberg Television.

LOL Toucan, you got your link from Godlike Productions, described by Wiki as the following: Godlike Productions (GLP) is a website/community of conspiracy theorists and various other kinds of woo-believers. Its main feature is a forum, though it also provides image and video hosting and a podcast service. In many ways it's similar to Above Top Secret.

I would like to find out more about the "low income" units. There are many many people who are college educated who start out making less than $30,000. My sister was earning less than $30,000 in her first job after obtaining a Master's Degree in journalism. She has a roomate, and together they split the rent on an $850 a month apartment, as that is all they can afford, with student loans, car payment etc. Social workers also typically make under $30,000. Many hard working people with less education are making well under $30,000. I would welcome these people to Uptown. They will not be able to afford rents anywhere close to what this building would charge, and I would be happy for the subsidized housing to help people like them out. However, if the units are for extremely low income/unemployed people (like Lawrence House), I would have a different view.

Uptown SuperHero! said...LOL Toucan, you got your link from Godlike Productions, described by Wiki as the following: Godlike Productions (GLP) is a website/community of conspiracy theorists and various other kinds of woo-believers. Its main feature is a forum, though it also provides image and video hosting and a podcast service. In many ways it's similar to Above Top Secret.

Next time, quit cherry picking lunatic articles.

Dude, you may have a lunatic computer. My link goes to bloomberg.com, which was the third listing when I googled "home ownership in us."